Appendix_L_-_FAR_52.212-2_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

Appendix L – Evaluation Factors for Award

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff SS procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between past performance and price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum to this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

1.1.1. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all SS criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the SS process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, DoD Source Selection Procedures 31 Mar 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency. If a deficiency is not considered correctable, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. The Government also reserves the right to eliminate an offeror from the competitive range where the technical proposal does not require a major proposal revision, but the offeror is not among the most highly rated offerors.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/LF8798DU/MP5315.3.doc%23s153 file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/LF8798DU/MP5315.3.doc%23s153

1.4. Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach.

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c).

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

1.6. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if offerors will be required to include EN responses in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how offerors will submit FPRs. The Government also reserves the right to request Draft FPRs during discussions.

1.7. Reviews and Visits

Site visits are not planned. The SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development of manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror’s written proposal.

1.8. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Supply Chain Management Subfactor 3: Maintenance Subfactor 4: Phase In

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price).

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each Offeror in determining the competitive range. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Past Performance ratings and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which Offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each Offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A single deficiency within a subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for that subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating, and therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating, rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings, and the overall Technical rating.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Subfactor One: Program Management (PM)

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed PM approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

a. An effective plan to support mission essential services during crisis, deployments, drop-in maintenance, aircraft on ground, and contract field team which ensures PWS sections 3.1.6.1, 5.3, 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 requirements are met.

A proposed plan to provide mission essential services during crisis will be evaluated IAW DFARS 252.237-7023 and 7024(b) (1) and (2) as a minimum.

b. Signed letters of intent with the OEM, Engine Maintenance agreements, and the establishment of subcontractor agreements ensuring PWS sections 2.6, 3.10, and 5.9.3 are met.

c. A thorough understanding of managing maintenance requirements in accordance with Gulfstream Aircraft Maintenance Manual Chapter 5, CMP.net, and PWS Sections 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 5.0 will include:

1. Demonstrating effective knowledge of CMP by providing all related/associated/sub-codes (with descriptions) for depot CLINs X600;

X601; X725; and X727 using the numerical ordered list of the CMP baseline codes as follows:

i. Provide CMP code and inspection listing in an operational, sortable excel spreadsheet using the example in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1- Instructions to Offerors, attachment 4.0 as the required format. In order to be technically acceptable, depot CLINs X600; X601; X725; and X727 must be correct and complete as specified in the Gulfstream commercial maintenance manuals.

ii. Related/associated/sub-codes (with descriptions) showing parent-child relationships to the baseline codes must be correct and complete.

2. Providing an effective method to develop, manage and maintain a 10-year integrated depot maintenance schedule in accordance with PWS Sections

3.2.7 and 5.4.2 should include:

i. Demonstrating an effective knowledge of how to schedule a depot maintenance input, offeror will provide a detailed schedule in Mircrosoft Project (or equivalent) format, with critical path milestones to support the requirement. An appropriate response should include providing assumptions used to develop the schedule, shifts of manning, and required effort (if necessary) of sub-contractors.

3. Providing the effective method(s) to identify and perform Main Operating Base (MOB) maintenance (at full CLS sites) to maximize the availability of all aircraft and engines for each branch of service in accordance with PWS

5.2 and 5.2.1. An effective method will demonstrate the ability to meet mission capable rates and other maintenance requirements of PWS Table 1-2, including the adherence to FAA, OEM, and regulatory requirements.

d. An effective approach to provide, at the time of contract award, an accurate web-based reporting system with print capability, which provides the Government complete visibility and insight into program costs (to include contract funds status reporting updated daily), aircraft status, contractor performance, and spares consumption and obsolescence. To be acceptable, the Offeror must provide an approach that sufficiently tracks and provides a real-time, web-based automated funds accounting system in accordance with PWS paragraphs 3.2.11 and 3.15.

e. The offeror’s subcontracting approach must clearly describe subcontract arrangements and relationships, roles, and work to be performed by subcontractors as well as flow down of systems requirements which ensure the PWS requirements are met.

1. The Offeror’s small business participation approach shall detail the extent to which Small Businesses will participate in their subcontract arrangements and relationships for each option year of the contract.

The Offeror’s approach shall outline the extent of the commitment to utilize the Small Businesses as a participant in this contract as required per DFARS 215.304(c)(i). The Offeror’s Team List must clearly describe the breakout and distribution of planned work between the prime and primary subcontractors, the percentage of performance as a whole of the contract effort and primary PWS functions they shall perform and be in the format specified by Addendum to FAR 52.212-1- Instructions to Offerors, Attachment 2.0.

2. Effective approach for managing subcontractor’s performance/participation, schedule and cost to ensure PWS paragraphs 2.1.3, 3.1, 3.3.1, 3.5.1, and 3.13 requirements are met. At a minimum, approach includes expertise in management of organized work force and effective plan for strike mitigation.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Supply Chain Management (SCM)

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed SCM approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. An effective process for worldwide inventory control and SCM for all Contractor

Furnished Property (CFP) and Government Furnished Property (GFP) which ensures PWS Section 4.1; 4.2; 4.2.4; 4.3.1; 4.3.4 requirements are met. This process shall include, but not be limited to, managing parts obsolescence and clearing foreign customs, C-20 and C-37 spares support methodology including procurement of the spares and inventory management (e.g. location of both CFP and GFP spares).

2.2.3. Subfactor Three: Maintenance (M)

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed M approach. Offerors are required to present all the information in the initial proposal as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

a. A valid and current FAA Part 145 Repair Station certificate with Operations Specifications for Gulfstream aircraft at the Depot site in accordance with PWS Section 5.4.1, 5.4.6 and 5.4.7.1. The proposed certified depot(s) facility for maintenance must have the capacity to support the “Aircraft 10-year depot maintenance schedule.”

b. An effective approach to plan/schedule engine shop visits, engine overhauls, landing gear overhauls, time change item work, service action compliance, Time Compliance Technical Orders, and External Aircraft Paint per the CMP Maintenance Plan in accordance with PWS sections 5.4.6, 5.9, and 5.4.10.

2.2.4 Subfactor Four: Phase-In (PH)

The Government will assess the Offeror’s Phase-In Plan. Offerors are required to present all the information in the initial proposal as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

a. An effective approach to developing a milestone schedule with critical paths to ensure the offeror is fully operational by contract performance start date in accordance with PWS section 2.1 through 2.8 are met. Effectively identifying possible risks and provide feasible mitigation of identified risks to ensure the requirements of PWS section 2.1 through 2.8 are met.

2.3. Factor 2 – Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance. Note:

Not all Technical Subfactors are included in the past performance evaluation.

Specifically, subfactor 1 elements a, b, c(1)(i) and c(1)(ii) and c(2)(i) are not part of the past performance evaluation. Offerors do not need discuss these elements in the relevancy narrative.

2.3.1. Ratings:

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings in accordance with the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures.

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “Substantial Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor.

2.3.2. Evaluation Process:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the offeror’s past performance.

2.3.2.1. Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2. Relevancy Assessment:

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors as described in Complexity and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)), as defined in paragraph 4.3.3 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

Contracts that provide for support, management, and maintenance of Gulfstream aircraft will be considered more relevant than those that do not. If the depot maintenance facility utilized is different than the one(s) that is/are proposed for this solicitation, that contract will be considered “Not Relevant” for the M sub-factor. If the contract being evaluated for past performance did not have a PH time period, that contract will be considered “Not Relevant” for the PH subfactor. Generally, efforts of less than $25 million will be considered “Not Relevant” for Magnitude and Price.

Exceptions to this rule include efforts, when combined, that comprise a significant amount of work (Example: multiple overhaul contracts under $25 million on a large

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract) and when the value of the effort is comparable to the effort proposed to be accomplished through a teaming arrangement (Example: A teaming partner is proposed to accomplish a portion of the entire effort and that portion of the requirement is less than $25 million).

The past performance information forms contained in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, Attachment 1.1 and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD SS Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Degree Description

VERY RELEVANT

(VR)

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT

(R)

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Scope, magnitude, and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. Any work accomplished by the prime or team member in an area other than that which they are proposed to work for the C-20 and C-37 solicitation will be considered “Not Applicable”. The Government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the C-20 and C-37 Contractor Logistics Support requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining past performance:

1. MOB Support

2. Worldwide Mission and Supply Support

3. Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply

4. Scheduled and Unscheduled Depot Aircraft Maintenace

5. Contract Field Team Support

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the proposed requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

1. Aircraft Type(s) Supported

2. Location(s)/Area(s) Supported

3. Number of Aircraft Supported

4. Contract Type/Value

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the technical subfactors except for the following: subfactor 1 elements a, b, c(1)(i) and c(1)(ii) and c(2)(i).

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost, Time and Materials of previous effort as compared to the C-20 and C-37 program requirement and the total value of the contract.

2.3.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment:

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory performance. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

(BLUE)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some or many.

Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

UNKNOWN (UK)

Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

2.3.3. Assigning Ratings:

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.3.1 above. The rating is not based on a quantitative analysis. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A record of Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant past performance, which may result in Substantial, Satisfactory, or Limited Confidence, may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral Confidence rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.4. Factor 3 – Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (including completeness),

(2) balanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an Offeror’s price may be rejected, if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all Offerors, including option prices. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP. The TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment G). These calculations will include all evaluation periods: a three month Phase-In, five month Option I, five one-year Option Periods, one one-year Incentive Option Period, and a six month Option Period to extend services. The Extension Period is in accordance with Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE:

Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions.

2.4.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for price reasonableness to include completeness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price reasonableness.

Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

2.4.2. Balanced Pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for balanced pricing to include any price increases greater than 5 percent per performance period, as well as any price decreases per performance period. The Government will evaluate all supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.4.3. Price Realism

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement, and must ensure the price does not pose a risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the Government may use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.4.4. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable, balanced, and realistic pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing and/or price realism. Offeror’s may provide any additional data other than certified cost or price data as believed necessary to support or justify proposed pricing

2.4.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Addendum to FAR 52-212-1 pricing instructions. The TEP calculation methodology is included in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment G) as a separate tab titled “Calculation Methodology.” Proposed pricing of the TEP will be evaluated in accordance with the following: The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the three month Phase-In, five month Option I, five one-year Option Periods, one one-year Incentive Option Period, and a six month Option Period to extend services in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services”. The six-month Extension Period unit prices will be based on the proposed unit prices of Incentive Option I unit prices. The six-month Extension Period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary. The Pricing Matrix (Attachment G) will automatically populate the unit prices for the six month extension period based on the unit prices proposed in the Incentive Option I.

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The six-month Extension Period is not to be considered part of the Incentive Option I and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.

2.4.6. Rounding

All proposed dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest cent. All proposed rates as a percentage (Material Handling and Travel G&A) shall be rounded to four decimal places to the right of the decimal point. If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP. Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

Note: The Pricing Matrix (Request for Proposal - Appendix G) includes a rounding formula when calculating the extended totals to automatically round the proposed unit prices in accordance with the ITO 52-212-1 Section 5.3.1.

2.4.7. Explanation of Specific Estimating Techniques and Methods The Government will review the basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was based. These methods should be similar to the Offeror’s Disclosure Statement. Any deviations shall be noted and reviewed. The summaries of the estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems will also be reviewed. The Government reserves the right to obtain information from the Contract Business Analysis Repository as considered necessary.

2.4.8. Past Experience Basis of Estimate

The relevance and application of the Offeror’s price estimates based on past experience will be reviewed by the Government.

2.4.9. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The Government will review the Price Volume for all Offerors’ explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. This includes review of the areas of price reduction, such as profit, volume or location discounts, indirect rate reductions, and so forth. Also, the Offeror’s explanation of how such reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at performance risk will be evaluated.

2.4.10. Subcontractor Pricing

The Government will review the Price Volume regarding information pertaining to subcontractor pricing. The Offerors’ determination of fair and reasonable pricing as it relates to subcontractors will be reviewed. Evaluation of subcontractor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology of determining subcontractor pricing fair and reasonable. However, subcontractor pricing per se will not be evaluated. The Government will review Offerors’ application of their (prime’s) indirect costs, including G&A, Cost of Money, and profit to subcontractor costs/pricing.

Proposed FFP pricing has associated risk to the Offeror – not the Government - with regard to adequately and sufficiently covering costs in contract out-years; this risk also applies to Offerors’ subcontractor pricing. Proposals shall be adequately and sufficiently priced to take into account future unknowns, such as fluctuations in contract out-year subcontractor pricing as well as potential changes in subcontractors.

2.4.11. Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding all price assumptions, limitations, and/or qualifications utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand the Offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate. Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.4.12. Rates

The Government will review Section 3 of the Price Volume to ensure the Offeror has indicated their understanding that proposed ceiling rates will apply to all out-years (periods of performance beyond the basic period) despite what current actuals are running at the time.

2.4.13. Government Furnished Property/Equipment/Material

The Government will review all information provided in the Price Volume regarding the Offeror’s compliance and understanding of Government Furnished Property/Equipment/Material.

2.4.14. Contractor Furnished Property/Equipment/Material

The Government will review all information provided in the Price Volume regarding compliance and understanding of Contractor Furnished Property/Equipment/Material.

2.4.15. Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)

The Offeror’s proposal will be reviewed for compliance with SCLS. Compliance with the SCLS is the responsibility of the Offeror and subsequent contract awardee. In addition the Government will review and confirm the Offeror submitted a conformance table that cross references the Offeror’s proposed job categories/skill levels subject to the SCLS.

It should be noted that actual compliance of Offerors’ wage rate payments to employees with the SCLS and regional Area Wage Determination (AWD) as appropriate is not within the responsibility or purview of evaluators and shall not be reviewed. The Department of Labor (DoL) is assigned SCLS compliance responsibilities and shall be the Government Point of Contact in regard to any compliance questions or concerns.

2.4.16. Government Field Support Agencies

The Government will review and confirm submission of the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and DCMA offices responsible for administration of the Offeror’s Government contracts.

2.4.17. Other Documentation

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data, other than certified cost or pricing data, as believed necessary to support, justify, or clarify their proposed pricing.

All pricing information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

3.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

3.1. Model Contract/Representations and Certifications

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Addendum to

FAR 52.212-1.

3.1.1. Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors The Government will review the offeror’s annual representations and certification electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov. Any missing information, or incorrect data entered as requested above (physically or electronic) may render a proposal non-responsive and ineligible for award.

3.1.2. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

The Government will review the offeror’s proposal to ensure all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and PWS requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors are met.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

3.2. Supplemental Responsibility Requirements – Facility Clearance As required in paragraph 6.3.5 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, the offeror, and subcontractors as required, must possess or acquire prior to award a facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD254) attached to this solicitation.

The Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) will be used to verify facility clearances. Offerors who do not have a facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD254) attached to this solicitation in the ISFD database prior to award will be considered non-responsible and will not be eligible for award. The Government cannot sponsor offerors for a facility clearance under this solicitation.

http://www.sam.gov/